General Assembly Resolutions on the Problem of Voting in the Security Council and on Pacific Settlement of Disputes

1949 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-715
Author(s):  
Yuen-li Liang

In continuation of the note on “Some Aspects of the Work of the Interim Committee of the General Assembly,” the present note will deal with the five resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the second part of its third session, held between April 5 and May 19, 1949, on the problem of voting in the Security Council and on the study of methods for the promotion of international coöperation in the political field. These resolutions, which were adopted upon the recommendation of the Interim Committee, concern (1) the problem of voting in the Security Council; (2) restoration to the General Act of September 26, 1928, of its original efficacy; (3) appointment of a rapporteur or conciliator for a situation or dispute brought to the attention of the Security Council; (4) amendments to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly; and (5) creation of a panel for inquiry and conciliation.

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  

On July 10, 1950 the Interim Committee of the General Assembly met to consider the following items: 1) the report of the Subcommittee on International Cooperation in the Political Field; 2) the report of the United Nations Commission for Eritrea; and 3) the study of procedure to delimit the boundaries of the former Italian Colonies. Before these matters could be discussed, however, the committee had to elect a new vice-chairman as Abdur Rahim Khan (Pakistan) had submitted his resignation from that position following his appointment as representative of Pakistan on the United Nations Advisory Council for Libya.


1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-290

On April 5, 1949, the second part of the third session of the General Assembly opened at Lake Success. Items which were to be considered at the session included the disposition of Italian colonies, Israeli admission to the United Nations, the problem of voting in the Security Council, treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa, creation of a United Nations guard, and violation by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of fundamental human rights. Reports of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, the question of Franco Spain, promotion of international cooperation in the political field, refugees and displaced persons, freedom of information, discrimination against immigrant labor, Indonesia, religious freedom in Bulgaria and Hungary, and adoption of Russian and Chinese as working languages were also to be discussed.


1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuen-Li Liang

The work which has been undertaken by the United Nations with regard to the encouragement of the progressive development and codification of international law finds its express origin in the duty given to the General Assembly by Article 13, paragraph 1 (a) of the Charter of the United Nations. It is therein laid down that: “ 1 . The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of: (a) promoting international cooperation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.” At the Conference held at San Francisco, April 25 to June 25, 1945, at which the Charter of the United Nations wasdrawn up, the measures that should be taken for “revitalizing and strengthening” international law, shaken in the course of a quarter of a century by the upheaval of two World Wars, were considered by Committee II/2 of the Conference.


1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-102

By resolution adopted January 24, 1946, at the Seventeenth Plenary Meeting, the General Assembly established the Atomic Energy Commission, composed of one representative of each of the States on the Security Council, and Canada, whose reports, recommendations and rules of procedure were to be given to and approved by the Security Council, which had the additional responsibility both of issuing directives to the Commission and transmitting reports from it to other appropriate United Nations agencies.


1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-517

The Trusteeship Council met at Lake Success for its fifth session on June 15, 1949 to consider a thirteen point agenda: 1) adoption of the agenda; 2) report of the Secretary-General on credentials; 3) election of a president and vice-president; 4) examination of annual reports on the administration of trust territories — New Guinea, Nauru and the first report on the Pacific Islands; 5) examination of petitions; 6) arrangements for the visiting mission to trust territories in West Africa; 8) revision of the provisional questionnaire; 9) revision of the rules of procedure; 10) administrative unions affecting trust territories; 11) educational advancement in trust territories; 12) adoption of the report of the Council to the General Assembly; and 13) adoption of a report to the Security Council.


1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 479-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedetto Conforti

Neither legal authors nor United Nations practice question the conclusion that resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council must conform to the U.N. Charter. Faced with a challenge to the legality of a resolution, the majority has never maintained that the acts of U.N. organs have to be complied with when they are inconsistent with the Charter. In such cases the majority has always preferred to deny that a violation of the Charter occurred, often resorting to a liberal, sometimes excessively liberal, interpretation of the provisions of the Charter.


1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Alfred Mudge

The oratory of the General Assembly and the Security Council and the resolutions adopted by these organs are the most obvious activities of the United Nations in the field of human rights and the features usually studied. They alone, however, give little indication of the effectiveness and the effects of the UN's actions. To investigate this one needs to go beyond New York to the national capitals. How do governments whose policies are severely criticized in the UN respond? On one level the questions can be simply answered. The alternatives are reasonably clear. They include token and substantive compliance, indifference, and defiance. But how is one alternative chosen over the others and does what goes on in New York have any impact on the political dynamics within the national framework? This article is an attempt to investigate a limited aspect of this question. It is an analysis of both the reactions within the parliaments of Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa to UN actions concerning these territories and the possible importance of these reactions in parliamentary elections.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document